Maybe it is Karl Malone shipping to the inner cities for profit, like he doesn't have enough money as it is. Or maybe they have nothing to do with it, which I would think is the case. Maybe more people of color need to apply, or do you think they discriminate? I highly doubt it.Remember, a lot of hunters and people that do this kind of thing for sport are white, so it makes sense.
I could ask you the same thing... why are you so hell bent on banning assault rifles that only account for 2% of gun deaths? It makes no sense. Not only is it one of my favorite guns, it is also my preferred choice of weapon to protect myself with. In heated moments, my aim won't suffer and i don't have to worry about missing like i do with a handgun. It is my weapon of choice. You want to take that away from me and others that feel the same. Plus, all in all, it isn't logical at all since there is no such thing as "assault rifles" which means you won't be banning anything. It will not help, it will not make a difference banning "A-Rifles." It's a feel good law for the left and to get votes... it is pure ignorance of weapons that keeps your side blind to any lie you hear to get you to vote left.
Because 2% of innocent people being killed is 2% too many. 15,549 people were killed by guns last year. 2% of that is 310.... If 310 Terrorists killed people a year then I doubt you would have the same stance (ironically you would probable call for more guns though)And I don't know what "side" your referring to and my lack of agreeing with you doesnt make me ignorant. I'm a free thinker Bro and dont lean "Left" (politically)I also notice that you spend the majority of your post defending assault weapons (even calling them your favorite), then ending your post saying that they dont exist (boogle)Makes me wonder if you even know what you are protesting
That said, I agree with you, but both sides do it.
making it law every state uses the NICS system.
Isn't the NICS system the database where people that are found to be mentally unsafe to themselves or others are suppose to be uploaded to? I was under the impression that it isn't "required" by every state to upload onto the NICS system where about a couple million of these people aren't on the database when they should be.
Now you are just forcing something to be wrong by playing word games. Do you not get the implications of banning something that doesn't exist? Assault rifles by definition are already banned or restricted greatly. What you are talking about is banning rifles... which account for only 2% of gun deaths. That is nonsensical. You are trying to put the burden of "i don't care who dies on me" ... yes i do. That is why it is nonsensical. If you want to ban a gun that will make a difference, you ban handguns that account for up to the 80% tile worth of gun violence, but therein lies your ignorance of the implications of your words... you are talking about "gun bans" and you don't even know it.
Unlike you, i am protesting dumb law. One, i do not want weapons banned bc i believe in the second amendment. And two, i am protesting doing stupid laws that won't fix anything in a quantifiable way. The laws that will have the most impact on gun violence aren't gun-control issues. Unless of course, you want to start banning weapons. Where do you stop. You ban rifles, you will notice people using shotguns. You ban shotguns, you will notice people using handguns. You ban bullets, all we are left with is 22 caliber BB guns. Your solution is a gun ban... so be honest about that.
And to sides... the side you are on is correlative with the left's proposals on gun issues. I have no idea if you are left, i myself am a centrist. So, i do believe in "reasonable" gun-control laws. For instance, universal background checks. Other than that however, i am for enforcing the laws we have, and strengthening other non-gun control related laws. Getting rid of gun free zones would be one start. To do things that make a difference instead of dreaming of an entire gun ban. You can hold that belief if you want, but again, it is an ignorant belief that won't fix anything bc it won't happen and you shouldn't want it to happen as a free
of course you are correct criminals don't follow laws hence the term. Gun free zones in their current definition and state tend to be horribly inadequate. The issue I have with them is hanging up a sign is useless and meaning less. If you aren't going to put in actual security then you shouldn't attempt to claim it as a "gun free zone" Have a do not enter sign isn't much use if the door isn't locked. I know you hate analogies but.....
as far as holding the seller or owner liable, I'm glad you brought that up. In the future for any vehicle or gun I may sell I'll be adding a waiver and indemnifier clause to all bills of sale. Afaik there's no liability or restriction or prohibition to sell a car to someone with many dui's, and the seller is not responsible should they commit more or injuries with the car.
would you support a tax payer funded store that acts as a used gun shop which would require background checks? Let's say I want to sell a gun, I give it to them and they sell it for what I'm asking, they do the background check on the purchaser and I get my money. While pawn shops and gun stores do this, they take a pretty good chunk of the money. But since this would be tax payer funded it would be a very nominal fee. This could be done rather inexpensively if it's an online store, mostly, and the physical location is at a local police station (just a random thought)
I would imagine (I'm not sure) that having a gun in a "Gun Free Zone" would increase the penalty if a gun is used in the location...or better yet, it would be a crime to just have a gun in such a zone.
But it is a crime in many places to knowingly let someone drive your car while intoxicated (DUI by consent). So with that in mind, having a gun around a person who may have violent or an abusive history should be charged too (imo)
Lets say that things go as you described, then the Purchaser has his gun stolen and that gun is used to commit a crime, In my compromise, the Purchaser would be punished which nullifies the senario.
I'm ignorant when it comes to BC's (background checks), are they not often done because of the fee? Unless I'm missing something, it seems that's the only thing your senario addresses.
I most certainly know that I am talking about a step by step banning of guns....starting with assault weapons that you say both exist and don't exist. I never said you dont care who dies, that either means:
We can debate the 2nd Amendment and it's original intent in another thread. I was honest alrdy about my stance on gun bans. You really should ask instead of trying to sound smarter than you are as it pertains to me
And my stance on this issue has nothing to do with my politics, unlike you (I assume) I can be "liberal" on some issues and "conservative" on others, I am a free thinker and dont let others do it for me.Universal background checks are useless when weapons are stolen or sold on the Black Market.... unless you are willing to punish the Seller or original Owner when a weapon is used in a crime, I would compromise with that.Getting rid of gun free zones is illogical and whats truly nonsensical is thinking that having more guns in more areas will create less crime. Fender benders and arguments and fist fights would be a thing of the past and the ridiculous notion of "stand your ground" would overrun the judicial system (imo)
